You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE PARENTAL...
, ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE PARTIES AND SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE FINDINGS IN THE ABSENCE OF A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing and remitting the matter to Family Court, determined the court should not have delegated its authority to determine parental access to the parties and should not have made findings without a hearing:

A court may not delegate its authority to determine parental access to either a parent or a child … . While a child’s views are to be considered in determining custody or parental access, they are not determinative … . An access provision which is conditioned on the desires of the children tends to defeat the right of parental access  … . Here, the Family Court determined that it would not compel either child to visit with the mother. Because the order appealed from effectively conditions the mother’s parental access on the children’s wishes and leaves the determination as to whether there should be access at all to the children, it must be set aside … . The Family Court made its determination based only upon its review of the papers, the in camera interviews, and the colloquy with the unrepresented parties, which occurred in the absence of the attorney for the children. The court did not conduct a hearing, did not direct a forensic examination, and did not seek information from the clinicians involved in the lapsed therapeutic visits. Although there are indications in the record that the mother’s parenting skills may be less than ideal, and she may bear at least some responsibility for her estrangement from the children, the record before us is inadequate to support the Family Court’s refusal to order, at the least, the resumption of therapeutic visits. Furthermore, the court’s finding that the father had done all that he could to encourage the children to visit with the mother was based solely upon the in camera interviews and was not based on any sworn testimony, and the mother was not afforded the opportunity to challenge, either by her own evidence or through cross-examination, the father’s assertions. Matter of Mondschein v Mondschein, 2019 NY Slip Op 06395, Second Dept 8-28-19

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS MOVING A HEAVY COMPRESSOR ON A PLANK OVER A TWO-FOOT-DEEP TRENCH WHEN THE PLANK BROKE; THE INJURY WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AS AN ELEVATION-RELATED INCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
REQUEST FOR STATEMENTS MADE BY WITNESSES WHO DID NOT TESTIFY AT TRIAL (BECAUSE PETITIONER PLED GUILTY) SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; NON-TESTIFYING WITNESS STATEMENTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL; REQUEST FOR GRAND JURY MINUTES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; ALTHOUGH THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS INVOLVED, PETITIONER DID NOT MAKE THE REQUISITE FACTUAL SHOWING OF A PARTICULARIZED NEED FOR DISCLOSURE.
THE PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS DID NOT WARRANT GRANTING THE MOTION TO DISMISS; THE AFFIFAVITS WERE NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY MATERIAL FACT ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFFS WAS NOT “A FACT AT ALL” (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE ACCEPTED DEFECTIVE GOODS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UCC, THE UCC PROVIDES REMEDIES, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO BE MADE WHOLE AND THE RIGHT TO REVOKE THE ACCEPTANCE; PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF HUSBAND IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION INSTALLED SPYWARE WHICH INTERCEPTED DEFENDANT WIFE’S PHONE CALLS AND THEN DESTROYED THE CONTENTS OF THE INTERCEPTION; THE INTERCEPTION VIOLATED DEFENDANT WIFE’S ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE; SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE PROPERLY INCLUDED STRIKING THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPOUSAL SUPPORT, EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (SECOND DEPT).
Trial Court Has the Discretion to Determine the Best Venue for Consolidated Actions—Here a County Other than the County Where the First Action Was Brought Was Properly Determined to Be the Most Appropriate Venue
FRYE HEARING REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER “OTHER UNSPECIFIED PARAPHILIC” DISORDER IS A DIAGNOSIS WHICH IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED IN THE PSYCHIATRIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES.
THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTTLY ALLEGED A BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTE; THE “IMPLIED COVENANT” CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED CONDUCT DIFFERENT FROM THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION AND WAS THEREFORE NOT DUPLICATIVE; SUPREME COURT IMPROPERLY REDUCED THE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AWARDS (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

APPELLANT, A COUSIN, WAS NOT THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A PARENT AND WAS NOT,... NO EVIDENCE THE FATAL ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY DRIVING TOO FAST FOR THE CONDITIONS;...